Sheffield v. City Of Fort Thomas
Decision Date | 03 September 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 09-5619.,09-5619. |
Citation | 620 F.3d 596 |
Parties | William SHEFFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF FORT THOMAS, KENTUCKY; Mary Brown, Mayor; Barbara Runge, James Doepker, Roger Peterman, Barbara Thompson-Levine, and Tom Lampe, Council Members; and Eric Haas, Mayor Pro-Tem; in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
ARGUED: Robert E. Blau, Blau & Kriege, PLLC, Cold Spring, Kentucky, for Appellant. Jeffrey C. Mando, Adams, Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing, P.L.L.C., Covington, Kentucky, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Robert E. Blau, Blau & Kriege, PLLC, Cold Spring, Kentucky, for Appellant. Jeffrey C. Mando, Adams, Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing, P.L.L.C., Covington, Kentucky, Stephen D. Wolnitzek, Wolnitzek & Rowekamp, P.S.C., Covington, Kentucky, for Appellees.
Before: KEITH, BOGGS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff William Sheffield challenges several municipal ordinances enacted by the city of Fort Thomas, Kentucky, alleging that the ordinances violate the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and that the ordinances are preempted by Kentucky state statutes and administrative regulations. The district court rejected all of Sheffield's challenges. With one exception, we agree with that conclusion. We hold, however, that the district court erred in concluding that Kentucky administrative regulations have no preemptive force as against Kentucky municipal ordinances. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.
Between 1950 and the present day, the deer population within the state of Kentucky increased approximately five-hundredfold. According to the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (“DFWR”), “deer are reaching a saturation point in many parts of the Commonwealth.” Among these regions is the heavily wooded area surrounding the city of Fort Thomas (a suburb of Cincinnati, Ohio), whose residents have suffered increasingly from motor vehicle collisions with deer, landscaping damage due to deer, and other cervid-perpetrated problems. Eventually, the members of the Fort Thomas City Council decided to take action.
Beginning in October 2006, a city administrative officer worked with DFWR representatives to develop a deer-management plan. Various options were considered, ranging from implementing a catch-and-release program to administering a birth-control drug derived from pig ovaries. In the end, the City Council opted for a three-part approach: (1) educating the public about deer-control tactics; (2) prohibiting deer feeding; and (3) permitting the hunting of deer by bow and arrow within the city limits, which DFWR representatives had advised was the most effective means of controlling the deer population in an urban area.
The second and third parts of this plan required several additions and amendments to the Fort Thomas City Code (the “Ordinances”), which the City Council enacted in December 2007. To implement the deer-feeding ban, the City Council adopted an ordinance (the “Deer-Feeding Ordinance”) which read in relevant part:
Ft. Thomas, Ky. Ordinance O-34-2007 (Dec. 3, 2007) (codified at Ft. Thomas, Ky.Code §§ 91.50-52).
To implement the remainder of its plan, the City Council had to modify § 95.05 of the City Code, entitled “Discharge of Firearms and Other Weapons,” which provided at the time that “[n]o person [other than a police officer] shall discharge any firearm of any nature, nor use or discharge any sling, bow, or other weapon in the City of Fort Thomas....” To that end, the City Council enacted an ordinance (the “Bow-and-Arrow Ordinance”) inserting the following language at the end of § 95.05:
Ft. Thomas, Ky. Ordinance O-35-2007 (Dec. 17, 2007) (codified at Ft. Thomas, Ky.Code § 95.05).
Finally, to address the disposal of the carcasses of the deer (and other animals) that could now be shot by bow and arrow within the city limits, the City Council enacted another provision (the “Field-Dressing Ordinance”):
shall any blood or internal organs be placed in trash containers for collection by the city or the city's garbage franchisee.
Ft. Thomas, Ky. Ordinance O-35-2007 (Dec. 17, 2007) (codified at Ft. Thomas, Ky.Code §§ 95.30-32).
In December 2007, Fort Thomas residents Lisa Kelly and William Sheffield filed suit in Kentucky state court against the city, as well as various city officials in their individual and official capacities, alleging that the Ordinances violated various provisions of the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and were preempted by Kentucky state statutes and administrative regulations. The defendants removed the complaint to federal court. In two separate orders dated January 8, 2009 and April 23, 2009, the district court granted the defendants summary judgment as to all claims. See Kelly v. City of Fort Thomas, Ky., 610 F.Supp.2d 759 (E.D.Ky.2009).
Plaintiffs timely appealed; Kelly, however, withdrew from the lawsuit after she was elected to the very City Council whose membership she was suing. Sheffield, now the sole appellant, has abandoned many of the claims asserted before the district court. His remaining claims are: (1) that all three Ordinances are preempted by Chapter 150 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes, which broadly regulates the Commonwealth's wildlife resources, and/or by Chapter 301 of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations, which more concretely regulates hunting; (2) that the Bow-and-Arrow Ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and § 2 of the Kentucky Constitution because it infringes on his asserted “fundamental right to be free from a risk of serious bodily harm” and/or lacks a rational basis; and (3) that the Deer-Feeding Ordinance violates those same constitutional provisions because it is void for vagueness. 2
We review de novo a district court's order granting summary judgment. Upshaw...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bojicic v. DeWine
...satisfied with the government's rational speculation’ linking the regulation to a legitimate purpose .... Sheffield v. City of Fort Thomas, Ky. , 620 F.3d 596, 614 (6th Cir. 2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)."Thus, if a [government action] can be upheld under any plausi......
-
Tiwari v. Friedlander
...a given area, violate due process only when they "impose[ ] burdens without any rational basis for doing so." Sheffield v. City of Fort Thomas , 620 F.3d 596, 613 (6th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). In contrast to laws that are presumptively problematic—say laws that allocate benefits base......
-
Am. Express Travel Related Serv. Co. Inc. v. Commonwealth of Ky.
...... violates the Due Process Clause’ where it imposes burdens without any ‘rational basis' for doing so.” Sheffield v. City of Fort Thomas, Ky., 620 F.3d 596, 613 (6th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Comstock, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1949, 1966, 176 L.Ed.2d 878 (2010) (Kennedy, J., con......
-
Puckett v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't
...... violates the Due Process Clause where it imposes burdens without any rational basis for doing so.” Sheffield v. City of Fort Thomas, Ky. , 620 F.3d 596, 613 (6th Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Such legislation is “endowed with a presumption of legislative validity, ......